Claimant v Millennium HD Limited

The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to prove a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The stated reason changed from redundancy to conduct, the employer conceded lateness was tolerated, and new allegations of gross misconduct arising from events on 17 June 2023 were unsupported by evidence. The dismissal was also procedurally grossly unfair—no investigation, no warnings, no disciplinary meeting, and no right of appeal. Dismissal was not within the band of reasonable responses given the minor conduct issues that had been tolerated for years without warning.

The tribunal found no evidence that someone without ADHD would have been treated more favourably. The only other employee dismissed (Mia Dickson) was dismissed at the same time for similar reasons. The employer had known of the claimant's ADHD since 2021 but there was no evidence the dismissal in 2023 was because of ADHD. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving a prima facie case of direct disability discrimination.

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was dismissed because of her age or to be replaced by a younger, cheaper stylist. The replacement stylist was not recruited until nearly two months after dismissal and the initial meeting was for career advice, not a job interview. There was no evidence the respondents had ever raised the claimant's age as an issue. The tribunal rejected the claimant's inference of age discrimination, finding no evidential basis.

No case was advanced at the hearing that the dismissal was an act of sex discrimination and no evidence was led to support such a claim. The tribunal found no evidence whatsoever that the claimant was dismissed because she was a woman.

These allegations related to earlier incidents (around Christmas 2022) which were out of time. The tribunal refused to exercise its discretion to extend time, noting the claimant had no adequate explanation for delay, sought advice from ACAS but chose not to pursue matters, and there was considerable delay even after dismissal. The balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, and the quality of evidence was adversely affected by delay.

Earlier allegations out of time. Tribunal refused extension. Same reasoning as above: no adequate explanation for delay, claimant chose not to pursue, delay prejudiced respondent's ability to respond given lack of dates and specificity, and claimant would not be wholly deprived of remedy as dismissal claims proceeded.

Earlier allegations out of time. Tribunal refused extension. Claimant sought advice from ACAS in February/March 2023 but chose not to take action, describing herself as 'not a moaner'. No impediment to lodging in time. Delay affected quality of evidence and prejudiced respondent. Tribunal found dismissal was the real core of the case and claimant would not have pursued earlier claims had she not been dismissed.